TMingyur wrote:I have really tried to explain to the best of my ability. But I find it unfair when words that I have not spoken [fig] are put into my mouth [fig] afterwards

What I am trying to do, Ming, is to understand what you are talking about.

TMingyur wrote:

Ben wrote:

TMingyur wrote:experiencing "deliciousness" as a characteristic of some food is far from mere discerning in the context of depending origination.

Really, how is it different to describing a taste as 'pleasant'?

Description is not experience. Description is a mental synthesis which may have an experience as its basis but it is not the same.

Yes, I think we knew that. What I am getting at is 'deliciousness' is an adjective used to describe the experience of taste as being pleasant.

TMingyur wrote:

Ben wrote:And where is the inherent clinging in discerning taste as pleasant?

What I expressed originally is that it is in the experience of "deliciousness" of some food.

Where is the inherent clinging in the experience of the deliciousness of some food. And why is there no inherent clinging in the experience of the deliciousness of other food?

TMingyur wrote:

Ben wrote:Or the inherent aversion in discerning a taste as unpleasant? Or the inherent indifference to discerning a taste as neutral?

You should ask these question to the person who asserted these things.

I am just trying to understand you, Ming. I am trying to understadn the Dhammic and/or logical basis for your statements.

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Ben wrote:And where is the inherent clinging in discerning taste as pleasant?

What I expressed originally is that it is in the experience of "deliciousness" of some food.

Where is the inherent clinging in the experience of the deliciousness of some food. And why is there no inherent clinging in the experience of the deliciousness of other food?

"deliciousness of" any food. It is contacting food or its taste, and vedana, muddled perception and papancas arising from this contact. The whole collection of the aggregates that is what is called "experience"

TMingyur wrote: "deliciousness of" any food. It is contacting food or its taste, and vedana, muddled perception and papancas arising from this contact. The whole collection of the aggregates that is what is called "experience"

Argument by definition, but there is no reason one needs to define '"deliciousness of" any food' that way.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

Ben wrote:Tell me Ming, if one discerns a vedana as pleasant, unpleasant or neutral, does it infer that one is experiencing clinging, aversion or indifference towards that vedana?

Hi Ben, Tilt, TMingyur

It has been my experience that craving can be quite subtle, and because of nandi or the defilement delight arising (caused by craving) along with sukha vedana (pleasant sensation) the 'deliciousness' is seemingly enhanced. Once these defilements are removed it goes back down to realistic levels ie pure sukha vedana.

Smart people do both. If you get nutrition, your energy levels and everything else in your life will suffer. If you don't get taste, there is a tendency to go nuts and binge on crap.........more crap than you would have had if you let yourself have a little bit of taste.

In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.

Jhana4 wrote: If you get nutrition, your energy levels and everything else in your life will suffer. If you don't get taste, there is a tendency to go nuts and binge on crap.........more crap than you would have had if you let yourself have a little bit of taste.

I think you may be confusing "taste" and some special category of "taste" here because it is usually the "crap" that has got intensive "taste" which however might be the one you dislike.

IMO if you renounce "taste" and focus on the nutrition aspect exlusively the likelihood you will be totally renouncing "crap" is very high.

Well just as long as you are happy to post on a public forum that you are more humble as a result of lunch, and not see any irony in that at several levels.. It reminds me of a joke.

It is the day of Yom Kippur the Jewish day of Atonement.The Rabbi kneels before the congregation and says " I am but dust and ashes "The Cantor ( choir master ) kneels before the congregation and says " I too am but dust and ashes " At which point the synagogue janitor kneels next to the cantor and says " I too am but dust and ashes ".At this the cantor whispers to the Rabbi " who is HE to be but dust and ashes ? "

The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

I think that CLAIMING humility in public might be just slightly a result of pride ?The statement "I am more humble " is an oxymoron. A statement that contains within it a contradiction.Its not personal Pedro. I think that there is a subtle form of pride which attaches to many statements about what one eats or doesnt eat. I suspect those who approach food with a lack of ego just eat, without feeling the need to tell others what they eat.

The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Sanghamitta wrote:I think that CLAIMING humility in public might be just slightly a result of pride ?The statement "I am more humble " is an oxymoron. A statement that contains within it a contradiction.Its not personal Pedro. I think that there is a subtle form of pride which attaches to many statements about what one eats or doesnt eat. I suspect those who approach food with a lack of ego just eat, without feeling the need to tell others what they eat.